LATEST CHATTY HEADER
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
New to Shacknews? Signup for a Free Account
Already have an account? Login Now
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
TLDR: It's good, very gamist, but if that's what you're looking for you'll be pretty happy with it.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 137 replies.
Second, How are they not supported in the rules? You have the PCs havign some heated discussions against the Powerful_NPC_X. He has whatever his natural/current stance is on them, which governs how he takes anything they say. They might try to convince him (through rolls or role-playing) and then the DM reacts accordingly. A botched diplomacy roll, and they have irons clapped onto their wrists.
The reason you don't want 'tactics' in an argument is because 1) mind control is not fun for players - having your character's opinion changed when you don't agree that your character would believe it is dangerous stuff, though exceptions could be made for seduction, drugging, et cetera. How you can say the game doesn't handle that is beyond me, though - if their character acts in a way, he does. Whether it's the player doing it, or the DM. Think of it like letting players roleplay their characters reactions to insanity in call of cthulhu rather than just taking them away from the players and puppeteering them.
If a character can 'win' an argument, mechanically, and convince a character despite the player's wishes that's retarded if it always works. Some people are bull-headed and will never be convinced. This should be totally legitimate, but work it into the story/game by having everyone else who SAW the discussion side with the 'winner', and (justifiably) view the character as being stubborn, when they obviously 'lost' the logical argument. Arguments are based on logic (or an appeal to emotion, admittedly)
I'm fine with a character falling back on mechanics if their character is better at skill x than their player, within reason. Not "I convince the king he's wrong <rolls>" but at least "Well, I'll try to take tack x, showing him that he shouldn't overlook their plight <rolls>" - that's fine. How does the game not support it? That's what all the non-combat skills are for, if you need to do that. I'm not a fan of the 4e skill system by the way, but I don't get your examples - I'd like to see an example of what it specifically, supposedly, does not let you do.
The post has been reported. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post.
You must be logged in to post.